From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,THIS_AD autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-22 08:39:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy References: <9gsvr7$7ho$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b366a2b$6$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> <9h7guv$pt1$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B3879CE.AC550F8E@acm.org> <3B3E73E8.F9C36524@ix.netcom.com> <3B405DDF.5C3F9207@acm.org> <3B416975.D7F0691D@ix.netcom.com> <3B432AD8.3828FB9@acm.org> <9i1q0r$324$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <7F917.2087$jf.539468852@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <3B4648A3.BECC1FE8@acm.org> <3B47CB75.234C0543@acm.or g> <3b52d7f5$1$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> <3b538445$1$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> <6pY57.813$Jv7.375807090@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Mail-Copies-To: nobody Organization: Atid/2 X-Cise: "Tony Schliesser" X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes X-Coriate: NCAE@NewAmerica.org X-Ecrate: Bob Germer X-Punge: Micro$oft X-Sanguinate: themvsguy@email.com X-Terminate: SPA(GIS) Message-ID: <3b5af324$10$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> X-Newsreader: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v2.28a/28 Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:37:08 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.55.10.86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 995816332 206.55.10.86 (Sun, 22 Jul 2001 15:38:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 15:38:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10418 comp.lang.java.programmer:84401 comp.lang.pl1:1251 comp.lang.vrml:4089 comp.lang.java.advocacy:24092 Date: 2001-07-22T11:37:08-04:00 List-Id: In <6pY57.813$Jv7.375807090@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, on 07/20/2001 at 03:48 PM, "Ken Garlington" said: >Based on this non-response response, you apparently concede that you >cannot dispute this point. No, just that I don't suffer fools gladly. I make a statement, you attempt to change what I said by applying a bogus definition and then expect me to take you seriously? No way. No, if you want to start with a discussion of what terms to use, agree to definitions and then discuss what positions we take in terms of those definitions, fine. Bute as long as you want to play those rhetorical games, I will respond to them as they deserve. >Based on this ad hominem response, you apparently concede that you >cannot dispute this fallacy (attempting to prove the widespread >existence of an organizational structure through the existence of >technology), and accept that it weakens your argument. Nope, I'm just pointing out that there is an issue that you are either deliberately refusing to address or don't understand. Techology constrains organizational structure but does not determine it. More specifically, improved speed of comminications makes structures viable that are impractical without it. >It also appears to be a single example, Why waste time with more, when you've denied that any are even possible. One is all that it takes to demonstrate your error. >The assertion that programs were *never* entered from a console >would surprise IBM 360 series operators, to say the least ROTF,LMAO! Programmers have been know to enter code from a S/360 console during, and probably CEs, but that was not the mode of operation for production, development or most testing. >I assume Yes you do, frequently and erroneously. >the term "plenty" here is used in the same content as "quite often" >above; i.e. there was at least one example. No, in the context of companies believing that there was enough of a market to warrant developing plug compatible peripheral devices for the purpose, e.g. the Cope 45. >(Contrast this with my use of contemporary authoritative references >in the previous post). ROTF,LMAO! >Based on the absence of an explanation as to why these are >"unrelated" terms, No, just refusing to explain the obvious to one unable to understand it. If someone other than you wants an explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. >No. You may believe I'm a hypocrite for using formal debate logic; No, for using rhetorical devices that have nothing to do with logic. >Feel free to post additional irrelevant >observations if you like; No, I'll leave that to you; you seem so good at it. >I can't see any reason to discuss it further. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 Team OS/2 Team PL/I Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org -----------------------------------------------------------